Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Letters to the Editor

Rainbow contributes to sustainability Re: Rainbow Lands After attending the open house presentation of the proposed Rainbow Properties redevelopment, we support the overall proposal.

Rainbow contributes to sustainability

Re: Rainbow Lands

After attending the open house presentation of the proposed Rainbow Properties redevelopment, we support the overall proposal. The inclusion of a major local service commercial development would be an asset to serve the new neighborhood.

We understand that these facilities would incorporate a grocery store, pharmacy, neighborhood pub, bank, beer and wine store, coffee shop and a gas station — all amenities that are presently lacking in the Alpine-Emerald corridor. Thought might also be given to a post office.

In view of the newly adopted “2020 Resort Sustainability Plan” and the previously adopted “Whistler Valley Traffic policies”, the proposed commercial facilities would be supporting these policies: less driving-less pollution.

Accordingly, council should support the proposed local service commercial.

As to the present economic downturn in the village core, this is more a result of high rents and high property taxation and an ineffective marketing program. Village merchants target a different clientele. As an owner of village commercial property I am aware of some other merchants who do not differentiate between local service commercial and commercial space, which caters to pedestrian tourist traffic. They have been pressuring council to restrict Rainbow’s commercial space. That is a mistake, which council should not make. Their concerns should not be confused with the needs to serve the local population with a “sustainable” way of “affordability” to live in these areas.

Peter & Trudy Alder

Whistler

 

Rainbow needs to move forward

Re: Rainbow Site Proposal

I have read with concern that others have expressed some objections to the commercial component being proposed for this site as well as the number of market units and the terms of the restricted rental housing, all stemming from the disclosures made at the recent public open house, and requesting that the rezoning process be further delayed.

Given that this incredibly desirable site has been sought after for employee housing for at least the past 15 years it would, in my view, be an absolute travesty for council to introduce any further delays and not allow the rezoning to be completed and approved this fall thereby allowing servicing and construction to get underway next spring.

To my knowledge, the current zoning of this site would allow up to something like 60,000 sq. ft. of commercial development but only 18,500 sq. ft. is being proposed, and all in the form of much needed local service commercial uses, including a service station, to serve the north end of the community. The reduction in traffic due to elimination of trips now required to the towncentre and Creekside to obtain these services will be significant.

The proposed employee and seniors’ housing component presents a yield of about 8 to 1 compared to the number of market units when, in the past, yields in the range of only 2 or 3 to 1 have been achieved in such locations as Lorimer Ridge, Millars Pond and Brio. This alone will be hugely beneficial to the community in the provision of affordable housing for locals in probably the most attractive setting in the entire valley, provided it is delivered in a timely way. We cannot afford to wait any longer.

This rezoning proposal needs to be moved forward to second reading and a public hearing as quickly as possible, by which time the details can be finalized and presented for public scrutiny and comment.

Garry Watson

Whistler

 

Thanks, but…

Dear Mayor Hugh O’Reilly: Thanks for your hard work through the years with the RMOW. You will be missed and remembered in many ways. However, Whistler needs to keep moving forward so, I think it might be best if you officially step down now, rather than stretch yourself between two high profile positions for the next few months.

If you follow through with that, Whistler could have an “Election Preview” by asking current councillors to rotate through the mayor position, if they are interested. In addition the RMOW could let local Whistlerites put their name into a draw to volunteer as a councillor for a week, allowing the volunteers to see things from the other side and put some of their ideas on the table. I am under the impression this would be very interesting and, hopefully, a positive research project.

Leslie Weir

Whistler

 

A message from Pemberton

Re: new Pemberton Airport Committee

Taking a page from Whistler politics, Pemberton’s mayor and council have put their blinders on to pursue a personal ambition not requested by their constituents. It's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is permission. They've assembled the usual cast of characters from Whistler as "stakeholders." Where is the ultimate stakeholder: the Pemberton local?

Here's a message from most of us: "We don't want the stinking Whistler Airport in Pemberton!" Tell us about the new hockey rink Whistler and Pemby have planned for our community first and we'll think about Whistler's airport then...

The time for surveys and public input is now, not after you've bought the silence of the Mount Currie Indian Band and sucked up to Victoria for all that cash.

Joanne Johnson

Pemberton

 

The need for increased security

I must admit that until recently I have never really believed in the need for increased security precautions in Canada. All those kinds of problems seemed to be taking place south of the 49th parallel, where missile defence, homeland security, terrorism and paranoia fill the media. But lately things have changed in our peaceful country.

Now is definitely the time for increasing security in Canada. Recent events have completely changed my attitude about the possibility of something nasty happening in Ontario. The reason for my turn in attitude came a couple weeks ago after receiving a phone call from a lovely lady who is also a good friend. Apparently, I was informed, not many residents of the Sea to Sky corridor would mind at all if some eco-terrorist camouflaged in a rainbow tie-dyed T-shirt and dreadlocks crept into downtown Toronto early one morning and filled a few offices in the CN Tower with thousands of stinking, rotting carcasses that were once fish swimming freely in the Cheakamus River.

Actually if anyone wants to volunteer for this task, I will be more than happy to lend you my truck.

Bjorn Gimse

Victoria

 

The facts are…

I would like to take this opportunity to reply to Robin Brown’s letter published in Pique Newsmagazine on Aug. 18.

While I have thick skin, Mr. Brown’s comments insult all of the staff and the unpaid volunteers who give of their time so freely on the Board of the Whistler Housing Authority. The fact of the matter is, the Whistler Housing Authority has been extremely busy and productive.

During this term of Council the Housing Authority has initiated the acquisition of unused road ends and rights of way and the conversion of those parcels to freehold lots, which can be used for the delivery of housing. The Housing Authority then acquired a house at almost no cost to the RMOW and moved that house to one of the parcels. As Mr. Brown mentioned, we hired a “housing expediter” to look for and negotiate opportunities. The housing expediter successfully negotiated the Memorandum of Understanding which will result in the delivery of the project on the Rainbow lands. Like much of what we do in Whistler, that neighbourhood will be a cutting edge development with a very significant employee housing component.

The WHA’s fundamental mandate is to deliver employee housing at no cost to the community. Doing that is challenging, and as a result the deals are complex and take time to negotiate. However, at present we have 327 beds committed. We have another 4,971 beds which will be delivered between now and 2009. This will fulfill 100 per cent of the restricted housing needs presently projected in the Whistler 2020 document.

The 327 committed beds I referred to above include a 30-unit mix of one and two bedroom restricted units in the Alpha Lake Road project. That project should be in the ground within the next 90 days. A further 256 beds are in the Nita Lake Lodge Project. The public clearly supported the Nita Lake project. Mr. Brown was a member of Keith Lambert’s cadre of NIMBY’s, one of the most energetic organizers of opposition to the Nita Lake project and one of the most vocal opponents to the project. Mr. Lambert’s lawsuit delayed the Nita Lake project by at least a year. Otherwise, those employee housing units would have been close to delivery by now. So if one is ascribing blame for the fact that the employee housing at Nita Lake is behind schedule, the young managers and professionals in our community who desperately want to buy their first home, and are contemplating leaving Whistler, need look no further than Robin Brown.

During my term as Chair of the Board of the Housing Authority, the Board initiated the development and adoption of a Governance Policy to guide the way the WHA does business. We initiated the development and adoption of a Business Plan and insisted that it be in a form that can be used as a template from year to year. We initiated a staff performance review and a review of job descriptions, neither of which had been done for at least six years.

With respect to my own subdivision application I had at least a dozen people approach me and say “I hope you succeed” and wish me well. As expected, my neighbours to the north expressed reservations. I encountered no outright opposition.

To suggest that I would have enjoyed a “significant financial gain” is absurd. There is no “significant financial gain” or any financial “gain” for the owner in the policy as proposed. The policy will allow owners to exchange land for cash at something less than a 1 to 1 ratio. After a successful lot split application the owner would be left with more cash, less land and less total wealth than before the subdivision. The community will have successfully imposed employee restrictions on another housing unit, at no cost to the community.

The policy I have proposed will deliver somewhere between 250 to 500 new employee restricted homes in existing neighbourhoods, using existing infrastructure and at no cost to the taxpayer. It will add the equivalent of a whole new employee restricted subdivision to Whistler, without adding to our existing footprint. Owners will only be allowed to subdivide lots where local neighbourhood conditions will accommodate a lot split.

The proposal was sent to the Non Cost Initiatives Task Force. The Task Force spent at least 30 hours in meetings over the winter analyzing the various permutations of the lot split idea. There will be a report back to Council in the next few weeks with a policy recommendation to the effect that we should allow lot splits, but only if the resultant lot is employee restricted. Anybody who thinks I have the power to hoodwink the long time Whistler residents who sat on the Task Force (not to mention our present Council) has more confidence in my persuasive powers than I do.

The conflict rules in the Community Charter recognize that Councillors are not expected to give up their daily lives. The Charter recognizes that Councillors will sometimes be in conflict when matters come to Council. When a Councillor initiates an application or otherwise finds themselves in conflict, the Charter prohibits that Councillor from speaking to the matter at Council or even speaking to a Councillor about the matter outside of a Council meeting. However, the Charter specifically allows a Councillor to have their lawyer, their spouse or somebody else speak for them. I have scrupulously followed the Charter when dealing with our application. Further, I elected not to have anybody speak on my behalf when my application came to Council.

With respect to the Eva Lake housing issue, my former client was not being sued by either the Eva Lake strata or by the RMOW. Contrary to what letters to the press have alleged, the individual for whom I acted was not “the developer”, “the contractor” or “a contractor” on the Eva Lake project. The Housing Authority has not been named in the litigation, most likely because the Housing Authority did not even exist when the Eva Lake Village project was developed.

My idea of sending the mayor to some of the markets we have lost is not “symbolic”, it is salesmanship, which is something any resort town can never get enough of. I have not discussed the idea with Tourism Whistler. If Tourism Whistler does not support the idea, I will not pursue it. Some of my ideas are creative, some of them are credible and some of them are just plain crazy. Some of them are not even my own ideas. But at least I have ideas and am prepared to stick my neck out in public to talk about them in the hope that I might contribute to a solution.

As is often the case, there is often more to Mr. Brown’s letter than meets the eye. Mr. Brown and I had a financial issue between us in which my position prevailed. So there is more than a whiff of sour grapes in his letter. We are facing tough economic times in this community. Some people will be part of the solution and others are part of the problem. Mr. Brown and people like him are extremely opinionated but show little concern for what is actually in the best interests of Whistler. People like Mr. Brown are clearly part of the problem. People like Mr. Brown need to get out of the way and let those of us who have some energy and ideas get on with it.

Nicholas Davies

Whistler

 

A question for council

What other secret plans does our council have for Lots 1 and 9 that will receive a $20 million kickstart?

Richard Edgar

Whistler

 

 

An entrepreneurial approach?

Much has already been said and written about the location of the sledge hockey arena. However, I do feel that one area of the report to council has been neglected, that being the revenue assumptions.

Obviously the viability of the facility, wherever it is located, is determined not just by the capital cost and the running costs, but also by the income generated. Having looked at the report's projections they seem to be woefully low. The report states that "Revenue assumptions are reflective of similar arena facilities in B.C. with a base population of 86,000 -150,000," which does not take account of the fact that Whistler is a resort destination with 2 million visitors a year — this would naturally lead to different usage assumptions.

The report also states that it assumes a "strong entrepreneurial focus" in the operation of the facility. The revenue projections certainly do not seem to reflect that. Any entrepreneur only projecting to receive $1.1 million per annum on a $58 million investment would soon be out of business! Would it be that difficult to get 5 per cent of those 2 million visitors to spend $10 each?

Looked at another way, if 135 parking spaces are needed (as stated in Option 1A) then even if these are only occupied for 2 hours a day each (and charged at $1 per hour) then that is $100,000 a year in parking revenue alone. If each of those cars holds 2 people who spend $10 each at the arena then that brings in $985,500 per annum! In short, the commercial potential of the arena is much higher than has been allowed for in the projections.

I am sure that a more commercial approach would lead to a revenue assumption much closer to the projected total annual running costs (Debt repayment plus expenditures) of $4 million.

I urge Council to push ahead with Option 1A, providing maximum benefit to the village, on the basis of revenue projections arrived at with entrepreneurial, commercial input, ideally from a public/private partnership.

John Fildes

Whistler

 

A limited vision

Our dysfunctional council simply does not get along, and appears to be ready to sullenly grind it out for three more months. The Paralympic arena situation clearly demonstrated this at the latest council meeting. The mayor and another council member verbally clobbered the lone councillor, who expressed an opinion, though problematic and vague, an opinion was welcomed and applauded by the crowd. Only one council member had the temerity to take a stance at the meeting on Aug. 15. I hoped to hear passionate statements like “I’d like to find a way to make this happen,” or “What can we do to keep this a part of the Whistler Olympic Legacy?”

I really think that council is going to take a dive on this one. I believe they are looking out for our best interests, but they aren’t looking very far. Certainly we are being manipulated with the presented facts, and limited options in a manner that can lead us only to agree with council.

The “arena option” presentation repeatedly approached the affair as if we were supposed to get the building for free. All options assumed that Whistler was not going to contribute any financing towards building the facility. It is assumed that the construction costs are VANOC’s $ 20 million and Whistler asks the bank for the balance. I cannot dispute that $58 million is an enormous amount of money, however, I believe Whistler would put a substantial amount towards the construction. Financing the $38 million means interest payments are sky high. From what was mentioned at council, Whistler as a municipality rarely builds with much debt attached to it. I think that the $2.89 million per year of shortfall to the municipality’s budget is a red flag, conjured up by a presentation plan that won’t imagine a better Whistler with this complex.

The presentation we saw limited it to a sheet of ice with seats, and possibly some commercial activity to it. 21 st century Whistler is going to have to think on its feet a little more, a twin rink for Meadow Park is what we needed yesterday. We are now the hunted, other resorts copy and build from our model. This is Whistler; where North American skiing and mountain biking were taken to another level. Alpenrock and Mountain World were not what visitors wanted for their Whistler recreational experience. Modern cities look at an arena or entertainment centre as a draw to the core of their town, and we would have the option for a future Junior hockey team ourselves. Certainly we would have a thrilling open house in the form of the Olympics. If it happens it should not be a juggernaut that the RMOW has to single-handedly oversee. Possibly that is the fear that is putting their foot on the brakes.

It may be moot now that we have less than 40 days before our second deadline. The window of opportunity to merge the private and public, with imagination and financing is apparently closed. That makes me pretty angry. The presented details of construction in Whistler show construction costs steeply escalating. The mayor re-iterated that this might not be the best plan for this last piece of land. My real question is, what is better? Moreover, in the land of $10 million libraries, in the land where a private citizen can build his own rink, will we be able to build something magnificent for less then $38 million? How long do we have to wait for the consultants, and studies to give us politically correct permission to build something special on lot 1/9?

Go to the open house Aug. 27, if you are for or against.

John McBean

Whistler

 

Taxpayers can’t afford arena

I understand how people around town might be feeling a little ripped off with council waffling over the new arena. But what the heck, do we need an arena that is going to cost up to $58 million? Yes, VANOC will kick in $20 million, but where is the rest of the money going to come from, but us the taxpayers?

And who is going to have to pay for the up keep? Us the taxpayer.

I hear people complaining enough around town about how expensive it is to live here and how taxes are too high. Add in an arena and they will be sure to go up. Plus, we have a new library that will cost $8 million-plus, and considering the museum is not part of that deal, I am sure we will be paying for another building down the road for that.

People I talk to would rather see an addition to Meadow Park then building a whole new complex. Move the ball fields over to Spruce Grove and make that a bigger, better facility and add the arena on to the existing facility. Don't get me wrong, we need extra ice surface but not at that cost.

Yes, we are a resort town, a good resort, but we had a crappy season last year and I don’t feel we can support this new arena at this time.

Paula Palmer

Whistler

 

Investing in the future

Investing in a community’s future takes vision and leadership. In my view municipal staff, council and the mayor have chosen the easy path. The most rewarding and long-lasting investments are never easy.

In 1988 Lorne Borgal led Whistler Mountain Ski Corp. and convinced the Young family to put up the money to build a 10-passenger gondola from the village to the alpine. The village gondola was installed for approximately $24 million. That would be equivalent to an investment of $35.5 million in 2005 (based on the average annual rate of inflation at 2.34 per cent). There were plenty of challenges but look at what that investment has come to mean for our community today. Whistler Mountain Ski Corp. could have installed two high-speed quads at a fraction of the cost.

The Paralympic arena at lots 1 and 9, has the potential to have an equally positive impact for Whistler. I for one would like to see some work directed towards getting this to the finish line. A second rink at meadow park is great, but it only satisfies our current needs, it does not do anything to enhance and dare I say sustain the economic and cultural vitality of our village. Choosing between the Paralympic arena on Lots 1 and 9 and an extra rink at Meadow Park is like choosing between a 10-passenger gondola and a high-speed quad. They’re both going to get you up the hill, but one holds out the promise for so much more.

Scott Patterson

Whistler

 

Hello, reality check!

To the "concerned citizens" lobbying fiercely for a new arena:

You guys sound like a bunch of rich spoiled children complaining that you didn't get what the kid next door got for Christmas! Guess what? Looks like Santa has fallen on tough financial times. Maybe after years of giving nice Whistler anything it wanted, he just can't afford a $58 million arena to add to the collection of top of the line toys. Perhaps some of you could have been nicer, a little less greedy and a little more helpful to your neighbours.

I am also a concerned citizen and I'm not ashamed to sign my name to my views. My concern is that hard-working, taxpaying long-time residents are filing for bankruptcy, having liens placed on them, cashing in RRSPs, paying penalties, interest and remortgaging. Some of them may foreclose on there homes. These citizens are your neighbours at Eva Lake Village. Does the debate on the arena sound petty now?

The repair is only 1/50th the cost of the facility yet the Muni refuses to cough up. Could it be the town is really broke? Good thing the WHA stashed away $5 million in its piggy bank. We just have to find a way to smash it open.

My parents taught me to be thankful for what I got because there are some kids who've got nothing. I say quit your whining and let Squamish or Pemberton have the arena because they want it and need it. We need the money for affordable housing. With no affordable housing people will continue to move to Squamish and Pemberton, making a rink there more critical and redundant in Whistler.

This arena issue is another example of a statement I made a few weeks back that greed and elitism has eroded the social fabric of this town. Let’s put roofs on our heads before we buy more expensive toys.

Mike Roger

Birken/Whistler

 

Gymnasts weigh in

We are competitive members of the Whistler Gymnastics Club and we are 10 and 11 years old. We love gymnastics more than anything. We have a really great club but the only problem is that we don’t have a real facility to train in. We train three nights a week and each day the coaches have to set up all the equipment in the school gym (with the help of Grade 7 students). Next, we train for three hours. Then the parents come and we have to quit early to put away all the equipment.

It is a really big job and most of the equipment is really heavy. It fits together like a jigsaw puzzle and gets stuffed in a really small equipment room. We like it when the ski club, tramp or freestyle groups come to train with our equipment after us because then they get to put away some of the stuff.

We really look forward to going away to gym meets because it is the only time we get to perform on a full size sprung floor and train in a foam pit. It would be like going away to play a hockey game and playing on a big rink when you are only used to training on a thin strip of ice at home.

Our biggest hope is to one day have a facility like kids in other towns. We are really proud of Whistler and would love to host meets and show it off. It would be really sweet to be part of the new arena that may be built for the Olympics. Lots of other people could also use our equipment and the space for training for their sports or just for having fun. If you have ever seen any of our shows you will know that we work super hard and have a ball. We always do well at our meets even though our competitors often train twice as many hours as we do (on proper equipment), and our cheering section is always the loudest.

Please think about helping us build a gym facility that our club and the whole community can use. That is our dream.

Lenka Prochazka, Jasmin Budge, Rebecca Flynn

Whistler

 

Dysfunctional decision-making

Having taken in the RMOW’s staff presentation and recommendation on the Paralympic Sledge Hockey Arena on Aug. 15th, the dysfunction surrounding the current process of making crucial long-term community decisions is clearer than ever to me. What’s not clear is why, and I think the community needs to ask some tough questions.

• Why not be inclusive and involve the public in dialog prior to making decisions that are fundamental to the future of Whistler… especially with the “Whistler 2020” plan calling for such inclusively?

• Why, when it was determined that the Muni would have to borrow money to finance the portion of the costs, over and above VANOC’s $20 million, and it was known that to do so requires a referendum that takes 4-6 months to put in place, was the public not immediately engaged to ensure there was support for borrowing and there was time to consider alternatives?

• Why was some kind of RFP process not used, shortly after we won the Games in 2003, to solicit concepts for the development of Lot 1/9, that include an arena that could meet VANOC’s needs and those of the community?

All this makes me wonder if somebody already thinks they know what the best use for Lot 1/9 is, and if there is yet another deal quietly percolating that we’ll hear about once that deal is done too.

Let’s let our imaginations run wild for a moment… What if somebody was to determine that the best use for Lot 1/9 is a partly-covered, open-to-the-air, arena and kids winter play park, that turns into a water park in the summer? And what if it also was determined that, rather than making it happen via VANOC money, it makes more sense to take a smaller bag of VANOC money now for a community “practice arena” at Meadow Park, and then to have the Muni (or maybe Intrawest) develop and run such a facility on Lot 1/9? Citizens might happily endorse or vehemently oppose such a concept, but at least valuable dialogue would be stimulated. Whether these types of ideas are being discussed within the Muni/council or not, why hasn’t dialogue aimed at generating creative concepts occurred between the time we won the Games and now?

After we ask these tough questions, let’s be sure to put the bulk of our frustrations aside and save them for the coming election campaign, in which all current councilors will have to answer to why they allowed the arena saga to play out as it has. Let’s focus on the job of making the best decision we can with the short time we have until the VANOC Sept. 30th decision deadline for the arena.

I see two different needs here, requiring dialogue, which just might take two different facilities to address:

1) Another ice surface for our kids and local leagues/clubs ­— so that we don’t find ourselves running (or moving) to Squamish for amenities like ice time, and giving up on rec hockey because we can’t keep our eyes open until 1 a.m.

2) An anchor recreational facility in the village — to bring residents back to the village to foster pride and community connections, and to offer new alternatives to guests to keep them coming back to Whistler year after year (ie. one form of economic stimulus).

If there’s truly no time left to go back to the drawing board then, although we may hate how we arrived at the decision, maybe an $8 million grant and no debt is better than a $20 million grant, a huge debt, and an immoveable white elephant on Lot 1/9 that we end up referring to as “that big building with the Olympic rings on it that never really benefited this place much.”

If we decide not to host sledge hockey in Whistler, I will always be bothered by the fact that we did not meet the commitments that we made to the Paralympic community during the bid phase — to have all venues in one town to ease their transportation challenges and provide a unique Games for them.

Paul Shore

Whistler